PDA

View Full Version : Article in the Journal of the Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers



MikeK
07-29-2009, 06:44
There is an article in the recent edition of 'Ground Water', the Journal of the Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers, titled: Springs and the Origin of Bourbon

It is a tad dry (no pun), but offers a decent history of Bourbon in KY, talking a bit about the importance of KY limestone water. The article is fairly accurate, it is nice to see someone do their research. The author sent me the attached PDF copy because I had supplied him with a photo and some minor info for his article a while back.

It was written by:
Alan E. Fryar
Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Kentucky

pepcycle
07-29-2009, 08:10
How did I miss that one?

I was reading the Journal of Spatial Hydrology

MikeK
07-29-2009, 08:31
Gee, I thought everyone had that publication on their coffee table....

:)

There wasn't a whole lot of 'ground water' content in that article. I think this boy likes his Bourbon and came up with a thin excuse to do some 'research'. I like him.

DeanSheen
07-29-2009, 10:41
I wish he would have identified all the distilleries that use the ground water vs. the other sources.

cas
07-30-2009, 04:31
I note he cites a 2007 Regan and Regan "Book of Bourbon". Is this an update on the 90s edition - or just a web site citation?
Craig

pepcycle
07-30-2009, 11:34
The Title should be:

"How to Deduct a Trip On the Bourbon Trail"

cowdery
07-30-2009, 12:22
The piece is not without its mistakes. Right off the bat, he gets the definition of bourbon wrong, saying that it must be aged for at least two years. That's the definition of straight bourbon. He also quotes the 1964 resolution as declaring bourbon a "distinctive national product," which although that is an accurate characterization, he puts it in quotation marks even though those words do not appear. The actual quote is "a distinctive product of the United States." He should either have omitted the quotation marks or used the actual quotation.

The caption of Mike K's photo of Woodford's stills says, in part, "Pot stills are used for small-batch bourbon production in lieu of a continuous still," which is true only of Woodford Reserve and is specifically not true of the four 'official' small batch bourbons from Beam, for which the term was coined.

His use of the term "sour mash starter" suggests a misunderstanding of the sour mash process, as setback contains no live yeast and, therefore, cannot 'start' anything.

He describes the mashing process then says "the grain is cooked for approximately 3.5 h at approximately 145° F (63°C)." In reality, no additional heat is applied after the malt is added. The mash is simply allowed to rest. And nothing is cooked for 3.5 h. The corn is what really needs cooking at high temperature, and it is cooked for 30 to 40 minutes.

Before the mash goes into the still, it goes into the beer heater, where it is heated to 145° F to better match the internal temperature of the still, but that's not cooking and certainly doesn't take 3.5 h.

He says "Distilled water is added to reduce the alcohol content to 62.5% maximum" for barreling. I know of no distillery that uses distilled water for this or any other purpose. The water is processed, typically by reverse osmosis. This may seem like a very small point, but since the piece is ostensibly about water, he should have gotten that right.

But these are quibbles. I'm mostly pissed because he didn't cite to me.

cowdery
07-30-2009, 13:00
I wish he would have identified all the distilleries that use the ground water vs. the other sources.

He identified most of them at the bottom of page 609, column two. I am pretty sure both Beam plants use dechlorinated city water like the Louisville distilleries, but Louisville's city water is drawn from ground water, not from the Ohio River. I suspect that's true at Beam as well. There isn't an adequate surface water source at either Beam plant.

Who else wasn't mentioned?

Josh
07-30-2009, 13:51
The piece is not without its mistakes. Right off the bat, he gets the definition of bourbon wrong, saying that it must be aged for at least two years. That's the definition of straight bourbon. He also quotes the 1964 resolution as declaring bourbon a "distinctive national product," which although that is an accurate characterization, he puts it in quotation marks even though those words do not appear. The actual quote is "a distinctive product of the United States." He should either have omitted the quotation marks or used the actual quotation.

The caption of Mike K's photo of Woodford's stills says, in part, "Pot stills are used for small-batch bourbon production in lieu of a continuous still," which is true only of Woodford Reserve and is specifically not true of the four 'official' small batch bourbons from Beam, for which the term was coined.

His use of the term "sour mash starter" suggests a misunderstanding of the sour mash process, as setback contains no live yeast and, therefore, cannot 'start' anything.

He describes the mashing process then says "the grain is cooked for approximately 3.5 h at approximately 145 F (63C)." In reality, no additional heat is applied after the malt is added. The mash is simply allowed to rest. And nothing is cooked for 3.5 h. The corn is what really needs cooking at high temperature, and it is cooked for 30 to 40 minutes.

Before the mash goes into the still, it goes into the beer heater, where it is heated to 145 F to better match the internal temperature of the still, but that's not cooking and certainly doesn't take 3.5 h.

He says "Distilled water is added to reduce the alcohol content to 62.5% maximum" for barreling. I know of no distillery that uses distilled water for this or any other purpose. The water is processed, typically by reverse osmosis. This may seem like a very small point, but since the piece is ostensibly about water, he should have gotten that right.


Yeah but other than that, it was pretty accurate.:lol: